tv [untitled] February 21, 2012 2:00pm-2:30pm PST
as it remains? 10.1 through 10.3, right? >> motion to approve. >> seconded. >> those in favor? >> aye. >> 10.4, the transportation code to increase the penalty of the amount of traffic for riding bicycles on sidewalks. -- 3 02 and 3 03, to increase the penalty amount for obstructing traffic, double parking, and riding bicycles on sidewalks. >> good afternoon. my name is barry toronto. i understand that you are raising their rates, the fines to be in line with other finds. and however, the question, as jerry lee had mentioned, why
continue to raise these if there is no enforcement? it is important to look at, for example, yesterday was a holiday and the only enforcement were the meters. i think it is important to find out how many meter tickets they give out yesterday. many people were surprised. holiday, a parking enforcement. parking at the meter, others found out that they got a ticket. so, there is some very poor information out there. letters from the editor asked about this, i am sure. the question is, how much do we break this the rates? -- do we raise the rates? is it a problem, with the other finds, that we need to raise the rates to continue deterrents? i agree that parking is a problem.
would you rather have them focusing on the meters, rather than double parking? i think -- i would like to find out the deployment numbers. how many people do you have today versus yesterday, sunday, or saturday. if you do not hire more pco's to handle these issues or focus on certain violations more than others, i think it is useless to raise fines. first, we need to review publicly the number of violations given now for these types of issues. it is more lucrative to give a double parking violation. >> motion to approve. >> is there a second?
on the topic itself, i strongly support this. it particularly bothers me about bicycles on sidewalks. after all of the efforts that this board has made to improve bicycle safety around town, it is unconscionable. i hope that a strong message goes out. >> i will just remind the board, and the public, that it was referred back at the last meeting. we had more presentation about the number of citations on the number of pcl's. -- pco's. we brought it back to the board. >> i want to second my support for this locally, as well as
halthrough my vote. i respect the bus benching and feel the effects of double parking when we get stuck behind them. i hope that when we talk about educating the public in whenever campaign we go forward with, we talk about the secret picture of how these projects, campaigns, policies, are not just moneymaking policies. an actual effort to make the overall system better. i appreciate that that is what comes. >> i think that the important thing on this is -- i am hoping that it really has the effect of changing behavior, changing the behavior of the people that double park. unless it does that, unless it is effective, but just to raise the parking fines for you
without enforcement, i think that i'd like to see enough pco's and officers out there to enforce double parking -- no double parking. that creates a change in behavior of the people who double park. i see it every single day. we get stuck behind people who double park. we are not powerless to do something about it. i think that we need to find the resources to get enforcement done. >> we have a motion and a second. all of those in favor? >> aye. >> all of those opposed?
it is approved. 10.5. >> 10.5, division to of the transportation code to set standards for advertising and other displays on the interior and an exterior of taxicabs, and requiring that the dispatch number for the vehicle displayed on the exterior of the taxicab. you have a number of members of the public waiting to speak with you. >> that afternoon. >> good afternoon, directors. my name is charles. i am here on behalf of the luxury cab company. i have an item overhead that i hope we can display. this has to do towith wrap and partial wrap ads. i think that this might be a confusing issue to the public. how do i do this? do i raise it higher?
basically, this is a revenue issue for the taxi cab companies. full wrap ads are confusing to the public. they do not recognize the vehicle as a taxicab. here is one of the regular ones on the top. the lower portion is a mock up of a taxi to be calling door or partial wrap ad. you can see that these key elements are on the panel here. and the number to call for a taxi has been moved forwards or backwards. i believe that this vehicle, the mock up is still clearly identifiable as a taxicab. we would ask that specifically section 11-13.i.7 be modified to
allow the door wrap ads. this is not the biggest revenue issue before you today. it is relatively small in the grand scheme of things. it was not that long ago that revenues were tight. i would ask you, for your sake in the cab company sake, that this revenue helps us to defray some of the cost. [tone] >> thank you. >> [reads names] >> thank you. this time i am just speaking on behalf of green cab. we have over 50 drivers that are members and part owners of the company in san francisco,
running on cooperative principles. although there is another company that uses cooperative in its name. >> i wanted to propose amendments -- i wanted to propose amendments to section 1c8. the number that is associated with -- with the side of the cabinet. our green cab number is on the side. an easy one for the public to remember. the dispatch service that we subscribe to, the calls are put out to all of the citywide drivers. likewise, they are put out to all of our drivers. from the public's standpoint, it is steam -- seamless, but it is
really important to us to have our own phone number. this number is widely used in the account for 25% of the calls that come in a citywide. even though we only have 10% of the cab service. if you had ever sat through one of our interview process is, you would understand why. we need to have our own phone number for our own identity purposes. yet that number will still be dispatched number. we are asking for a change in the language for the phone number to call the dispatch service. we have discussed this, mr. jarvis is in agreement. [tone] >> [leads names] -- reads names]
>> good afternoon, again. i appreciate staffed bringing this forward. i think that the lack of company managers appearing before you may be saying volumes about this, unless you receive the documentation war correspondents from the managers. i, myself, when they first introduced this to the taxi commission years ago, i was not totally in favor, as it made it difficult for them to recognize the taxicab. i think that it is important for the company, that the person calling, that they can recognize it is the cab that they actually called, so that there is not a confusion, because the person was not left there as they did not recognize it as being that persons cab. however, there are two items that are confusing in the staff report.
it is a huge revenue impact. lots of money, thousands of dollars collected over the years from the fact that the advertising company took a certain amount to a rapt fund. it is important to know how much has been collected up until this point. where is the money. and what do we do with the money? where is it? there may be documents that say this, but you do not have those documents in front of you. as a result, we do not have those numbers in a crevasse. i think that it is important to know that without a direct benefit to the driver is by having this section wrapped, there might be an indirect benefits. it was not readily apparent or transparent. it is important that this
information is included in the program. i appreciate your time. [tone] >> mice to see you. >> that afternoon, directors. one of the lines on this issue is inside and outside on the ad display. installing into the back seat terminals, the cab company and companies were doing it, the offering cab companies 150 per month, 1800 per year, to run the ads on their terminals. the question of this line is inserted in the whole story. this is the door to open for the back seat revenues.
in this case, i would say that this matter be prepared and make a proper plan for it. this way the drivers know, the companies know, no one speaks in to the situation. we are wasting time on this instead of using the time to serve the public. you might think -- why? no one is paying attention. i drive a cab and the 40% of the time. where are the cars? i can show you my records. how many days of the week. why am i 40% empty? very simple question. the day that the muni was down, i requested yellow on the phone many times. but the message was that we needed cabs in that part of the
city. several times by several drivers, no one put it down. so, please, there are serious issues. this batch is a very big issue that we need to sign first. thank you. >> on the point that was made, can someone elaborate that for a little bet for us? >> there were a few issues. the second was the phone number issue, then the revenue, and the last point was inside the change to advertising and the inside. >> good afternoon, commissioners. first, the simpler issue, as stated, i did agree. he brought that in front of me.
he made changes that would amend that section. the telephone number for calling this bad services. it was not clear to mr. gruber, that his current number, would fall under the dispatch service definition. the number that he has worked hard for a few days ago. it was not the intent of the legislation. >> the legislation -- the language used tear would be in the form of an amendment that the board had chosen? >> correct. >> and that is the board recommendation? >> correct. >> one thing in a time. the worry over this as an amendment? >> a motion to approve. >> any discussing and in favor? >> aye.
let's ok. next item. >> the other issue that you asked about was the driver fund or the wrap fund. the mta does not obtain revenue to the advertisement. the money is put into a driver found, which is for the drivers. currently, there is about $80,000 approximately through the driver fund. when it is done, the company will pay approximately $170,000 per vehicle for the advertising for a certain amount of time. . that is where that money is, what it is about. when the storm -- we will hear about it but mr. michael harris gives his information on medallion sales. >> members of the board,
questions or comments? if not, thank you. on the amended recommendation, is there a motion? >> second. >> a motion to approve the recommendation as amended. any further discussion? those in favor of democratsay.e -- those in favor? >> aye. >> thank you. in the public comment period, asking about the sales area, touching the comments in the program, i was hoping we could hear more about that at some point. if there was anything we could do to enhance pedestrian safety and vehicle driver training. that is right. we can meet with the staff. in the new stations, is that something we can hear about at
some point? >> i will discuss this with the project team before you report back. blacks item number 11 on your regular calendar is a presentation regarding fiscal year 2013 and 2014 capital operating budgets. >> ok. >> we will do this together. we have two different presentations to walk you through. one is on the operating budget. one is on the capital budget. this is really just an update for you. we will be having our first public hearing here at the next meeting, wind up the votes to take place. this is just to give you an update of where we are compared to when we last presented the budget to you at the november
workshop. i think that we will start with operating budget. those are going to help to drive the power point and answer the difficult questions. i will walk through an answer them. so, first we want to start with just a review of what we presented previously. as we work to get this up, we will walk through our preliminary budget. what we have changed, what has changed in the overall picture, what changes have been made on the expenditure side. just review, again, the revenue options that are out there. then, with the timeline, we will move to the capital budget. starting with the revenue texture, from slide 3 up, $786
million. as presented in november, i had revenue projections going to 810-the following year. nothing there has changed. we are still more or less still in the same place. i know that the general fund transfer line items remain unchanged. we got good news from the comptroller's six months for it -- six month report. the board budget analyst will be seeing that scene. it is likely that there will be some modestly positive news in terms of the general fund transfer. since we get a proportion of
those, we get the benefit of that. so, the next slide was the one we saw the last time, which just shows how we get from our current fiscal year 2012 projection to the increased numbers in 13 and 14. the big drivers on the plus side going for next year, and what we have previously anticipated from the general fund, we expected to see set a should -- be expected to see citation revenues with a healthy base line revenue growth in the next couple of years. on the expenditure side, a little bit of a different story. we have been working hard since we met in november to release see where we could whittle down the baseline expenditures. i emphasize the bat -- the word
baseline. as we discussed in the november workshop, there is the baseline situation in the overall structural situation. to close the base line gap is really belittling away at expenditures to deliver the same service that we are delivering now, and the same quality of service within our existing base line revenues. with that, we have made some progress. from the time of the workshop, we have reduced expenditures for the next fiscal year by $2 million. we will walk through what some of those are. walking through the proposals for consideration in the budget that we will be bringing forward. slide #six shows the major changes from the current fiscal year projection of $820 million
in the budget going to next year and the following year. again, most of this are things you have seen before. a few things about point out. on the salary benefits line, proposing management reductions in the current fiscal year, and the overtime reductions of the second fiscal year, falling in it -- falling in it -- following an increase in the next fiscal year. i think we are chronically under-budgeted over time. why we do have some over- spending over time, we will try to bring the budget up in the spending down to what we think is the right level of overtime for the next fiscal year. because of a number of initiatives that we are overtaking, including the prop g
initiatives, they are expected to do better in terms of bringing the overtime costs down. it is why i am proposing bringing the budget up in the coming fiscal year, for them to drop it back down by half in the following fiscal year. these are pretty ambitious numbers, frankly. we have been challenged to meet the overtime budgets in the past. i think that it is a management challenge that we really need to achieve in order to demonstrate that we can manage our budget well. i will point out in the insurance claims and the other payment mind, we have a good sized reduction there. showing more detail in the following slide, we are putting a lot of focus on workers' comp, which you approved earlier today in the consent calendar.
managing the workers' comp program, we are doing that now because of problems with our current one, but because of the city's contract with their 30 -- third-party administrator joining together with the joint purchasing power of the city and the mta. but you have been running before are completely separate worker'' comp programs, which i do not think i gives you the best value. putting those together, i do not think that we can reduce workers' comp costs. there are a number of things where we are resetting, through the fiscal 2011 actuals, the basic premise being that we are able to live within these spending amounts and they should be more or less good enough for next year.
those are the highlights. >> in the work orders, this is the entire change on page 6 here. >> this is what we understand at this point in time. the work order budget, there are some specific increases that we know of. the public utilities commission provides very little -- under- cost power to city departments and muni. they are going to raise that up by half in the coming year. in the following year, they will keep going, stepping up. the head ceci -- hetchhetchi fund is running dry. but will be in the proposed budget is what has been increased in the proposed year.
at $1.6 million impact on us incrementally each year. the balance of what is shown in this line, the work orders that we know about, there is the department of human resources that will be a shift of costs currently paid by us through a contract. it is not a decrease in mta costs, it is just shifting to thethr. we are contemplating funding the tax collector for additional parking tax revenue collection services that we think will have a greater than 100% return on investments. igbo rebound $1 back to us in the parking tax. if in the department of
emergency management, there is after hours dispatched for us that we had here to fore not been paying for. we are working hard to hold the line, if not increase what we see from other departments. however, the other departments have not drifted into what they are proposing in the budget, which is a follow-through impact to us. city department budgets are due to the mayor's office this week. the system would get a sense of whether the baseline numbers from the other departments will be changing significantly or not. we have already started to engage conversations with the other agency to identify ways that we can reduce costs. let's from their perspective, they are likely looking at just the opposite? >> true in some respects, but they have also been given a budget cut target from the mayor when he issued